Would You Favor Majority Vote?

[jillian]

No. We have a Federal Republic. Otherwise big cities get to decide everyone else's way of life. No thanks.

so you think your vote should be worth more than the vote of someone in a city?

I'll use an example I read about from the Seattle region.

the people of Seattle out voted the country side on what a property owner can do on thier property.

what right does a person, with no property, have to tell a person who bought and pays taxes for property, what they can and can't do with it?



sorry if that's confusing, I've been up to long.

i get what you're saying. you're saying they have no interest in the outcome. but you know what, i didn't have a say in my money being used to fund an unnecessary war of choice in iraq.

that's life when you're part of a society as large as ours.

 

[DiamondDave]

Not unlike the general elections, would you be in favor of national votes on issues that are of major concern such as taxes, medicare and other entitlements, job programs, education etc.? A straight up or down vote that can be scheduled as we can deem appropriate. Yearly every six months what ever. It seems as though little is getting done and the outside interests are taking control. The supreme court is a joke. They are appointed therefore are bias from the beginning of their appointment. A national vote would better reflect the nations desire to move in a specific direction on a number of issues. It will be paramount that several free channels be set up with the issues described without commentary. The Oil Sands is a hot topic today. I chose to get the information straight from Canadian resources. The professional Chemists, Geologists etc. How many jobs would be created which both sides lied about but are now walking back. I base my opinions on those facts not those of oil interests and political posturing. This is useful to me not MSNBC or FOX. If we can present the concrete facts then the people can make an informed decision. Well what do you think? Costs can be absorbed by cutting politicians pay and benefits as they are all for sacrifices by all of us.

I would favor a major rethink of our entire system of government.

It is far too much republic and far too little democracy.

I'm more inclined toward a parlimentary system than what we have now.

Increased 'democracy' as you want to see it equates to increased tyranny of the masses..... I'll stick to things the way they are, which helps ensure the voices of even the small states are heard

 

[Katzndogz]

Free IPads and free pot for everyone! The rich will pay for it. It will be equality because the rich will have free IPads and free pot too!

 

[Dragon]

Ah, here we go again: bring up; the idea of democracy and the usual subjects repeat all the usual myths.

Myth no. 1: Democracy will result in worse government because the elite are more intelligent, better educated, and capable of crafting better legislation.

Reality: The elite may be capable of crafting better legislation than the masses, but that doesn't mean they're willing to do so. What they will do, unless held strictly accountable to the public, is to craft legislation to benefit themselves and those who pay them to do so. Those with power are never to be trusted. Never.

Myth no. 2: Democracy will result in a "tyranny of the majority" that oppresses minorities.

Reality: ANY government results in a tyranny that oppresses minorities, UNLESS the rights of minorities are protected by law. There is no evidence whatever that democracies are worse about this than other forms of government, and in fact there's good evidence that they aren't as bad. As long as we don't repeal the Bill of Rights and preserve an independent judiciary, we'll be fine as far as that goes.

There are only three types of government: monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy. Monarchy is rule by one, aristocracy rule by the privileged few, and democracy rule by the people. From the standpoint of the common people, the worst of these is aristocracy and the best is democracy. Yet aristocracy is what many of you seem to want.

I don't because I don't trust aristocrats. It's that simple.

 

[Full-Auto]

Ah, here we go again: bring up; the idea of democracy and the usual subjects repeat all the usual myths.

Myth no. 1: Democracy will result in worse government because the elite are more intelligent, better educated, and capable of crafting better legislation.

Reality: The elite may be capable of crafting better legislation than the masses, but that doesn't mean they're willing to do so. What they will do, unless held strictly accountable to the public, is to craft legislation to benefit themselves and those who pay them to do so. Those with power are never to be trusted. Never.

Myth no. 2: Democracy will result in a "tyranny of the majority" that oppresses minorities.

Reality: ANY government results in a tyranny that oppresses minorities, UNLESS the rights of minorities are protected by law. There is no evidence whatever that democracies are worse about this than other forms of government, and in fact there's good evidence that they are less so. As long as we don't repeal the Bill of Rights and preserve an independent judiciary, we'll be fine as far as that goes.

There are only three types of government: monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy. Monarchy is rule by one, aristocracy rule by the privileged few, and democracy rule by the people. From the standpoint of the common people, the worst of these is aristocracy and the best is democracy. Yet aristocracy is what many of you seem to want.

I don't because I don't trust aristocrats. It's that simple.

NO EVIDENCE? Who needs history.........

 

[Sallow]

No. We have a Federal Republic. Otherwise big cities get to decide everyone else's way of life. No thanks.

Ah..so that "majority of Americans are conservative" meme is in the shitter..ain't it?

 

[Katzndogz]

In the real world, the types of government are:

Types of Government

1. Democracy
The word "democracy" literally means "rule by the people." In a democracy, the people govern.
2. Republic
A literal democracy is impossible in a political system containing more than a few people. All "democracies" are really republics. In a republic, the people elect representatives to make and enforce laws.
3. Monarchy
A monarchy consists of rule by a king or queen. Sometimes a king is called an "emperor," especially if there is a large empire, such as China before 1911. There are no large monarchies today. The United Kingdom, which has a queen, is really a republic because the queen has virtually no political power.
4. Aristocracy
An aristocracy is rule by the aristocrats. Aristocrats are typically wealthy, educated people. Many monarchies have really been ruled by aristocrats. Today, typically, the term "aristocracy" is used negatively to accuse a republic of being dominated by rich people, such as saying, "The United States has become an aristocracy."
5. Dictatorship
A dictatorship consists of rule by one person or a group of people. Very few dictators admit they are dictators; they almost always claim to be leaders of democracies. The dictator may be one person, such as Castro in Cuba or Hitler in Germany, or a group of people, such as the Communist Party in China.
6. Democratic Republic
Usually, a "democratic republic" is not democratic and is not a republic. A government that officially calls itself a "democratic republic" is usually a dictatorship. Communist dictatorships have been especially prone to use this term. For example, the official name of North Vietnam was "The Democratic Republic of Vietnam." China uses a variant, "The People's Republic of China."

 

[Sallow]

Ah, here we go again: bring up; the idea of democracy and the usual subjects repeat all the usual myths.

Myth no. 1: Democracy will result in worse government because the elite are more intelligent, better educated, and capable of crafting better legislation.

Reality: The elite may be capable of crafting better legislation than the masses, but that doesn't mean they're willing to do so. What they will do, unless held strictly accountable to the public, is to craft legislation to benefit themselves and those who pay them to do so. Those with power are never to be trusted. Never.

Myth no. 2: Democracy will result in a "tyranny of the majority" that oppresses minorities.

Reality: ANY government results in a tyranny that oppresses minorities, UNLESS the rights of minorities are protected by law. There is no evidence whatever that democracies are worse about this than other forms of government, and in fact there's good evidence that they are less so. As long as we don't repeal the Bill of Rights and preserve an independent judiciary, we'll be fine as far as that goes.

There are only three types of government: monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy. Monarchy is rule by one, aristocracy rule by the privileged few, and democracy rule by the people. From the standpoint of the common people, the worst of these is aristocracy and the best is democracy. Yet aristocracy is what many of you seem to want.

I don't because I don't trust aristocrats. It's that simple.

NO EVIDENCE? Who needs history.........

Evidence?

Executive to employee compensation is something like 470:1. Basically similar to third world countries. And..America tops the ranks of countries with most billion and millionaires. Quality of life? Longevity? Access to health care? Poverty? We don't do so well.

Wonder why?

Oh yeah..conservatives are saying Americans are stupid and lazy...and deserve to die.

Forgot that.

 

[Sallow]

Not unlike the general elections, would you be in favor of national votes on issues that are of major concern such as taxes, medicare and other entitlements, job programs, education etc.? A straight up or down vote that can be scheduled as we can deem appropriate. Yearly every six months what ever. It seems as though little is getting done and the outside interests are taking control. The supreme court is a joke. They are appointed therefore are bias from the beginning of their appointment. A national vote would better reflect the nations desire to move in a specific direction on a number of issues. It will be paramount that several free channels be set up with the issues described without commentary. The Oil Sands is a hot topic today. I chose to get the information straight from Canadian resources. The professional Chemists, Geologists etc. How many jobs would be created which both sides lied about but are now walking back. I base my opinions on those facts not those of oil interests and political posturing. This is useful to me not MSNBC or FOX. If we can present the concrete facts then the people can make an informed decision. Well what do you think? Costs can be absorbed by cutting politicians pay and benefits as they are all for sacrifices by all of us.

I would favor a major rethink of our entire system of government.

It is far too much republic and far too little democracy.

I'm more inclined toward a parlimentary system than what we have now.

Increased 'democracy' as you want to see it equates to increased tyranny of the masses..... I'll stick to things the way they are, which helps ensure the voices of even the small states are heard

Ah so..the Tyranny of the minority is so much better.

Got it.

 

[Dragon]

NO EVIDENCE? Who needs history.........

You, apparently. Or you need to study it better. Compare even an ancient democracy like Athens with a nondemocratic government like Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union, or even any of the absolute monarchies that were contemporaries of Athens, or for that matter the Roman Republic (which was an aristocratic republic not a democratic one). Non-democratic governments are FAR worse about that.

Those who think otherwise are, without exception, right-wing ideologues who believe democracies are worse towards minorities because they're told it's the case and they never bother checking the facts.

 

[Katzndogz]

The ideal of the left is a benevolent dictatorship that is what they think they are getting with obama.

 

[Dragon]

The ideal of the left is a benevolent dictatorship that is what they think they are getting with obama.

Good grief.

No, that's not the ideal of the left.

No, that's not what we think we're getting with Obama.

No, Obama is not a leftist.

Could you possibly be wrong in as many ways with as few words? That may be a new record.

 

[sfcalifornia]

so you think your vote should be worth more than the vote of someone in a city?

I'll use an example I read about from the Seattle region.

the people of Seattle out voted the country side on what a property owner can do on thier property.

what right does a person, with no property, have to tell a person who bought and pays taxes for property, what they can and can't do with it?



sorry if that's confusing, I've been up to long.

i get what you're saying. you're saying they have no interest in the outcome. but you know what, i didn't have a say in my money being used to fund an unnecessary war of choice in iraq.

that's life when you're part of a society as large as ours.

And my property taxes are educating kids who aren't mine.

Sometimes we have to move past what's in our own backyards and understand that what we work for is for the greater good..... we don't all always agree on what that greater good is as a society but you are right, that's life in a large society as ours.

 

[sfcalifornia]

Not unlike the general elections, would you be in favor of national votes on issues that are of major concern such as taxes, medicare and other entitlements, job programs, education etc.? A straight up or down vote that can be scheduled as we can deem appropriate. Yearly every six months what ever. It seems as though little is getting done and the outside interests are taking control. The supreme court is a joke. They are appointed therefore are bias from the beginning of their appointment. A national vote would better reflect the nations desire to move in a specific direction on a number of issues. It will be paramount that several free channels be set up with the issues described without commentary. The Oil Sands is a hot topic today. I chose to get the information straight from Canadian resources. The professional Chemists, Geologists etc. How many jobs would be created which both sides lied about but are now walking back. I base my opinions on those facts not those of oil interests and political posturing. This is useful to me not MSNBC or FOX. If we can present the concrete facts then the people can make an informed decision. Well what do you think? Costs can be absorbed by cutting politicians pay and benefits as they are all for sacrifices by all of us.

I would favor a major rethink of our entire system of government.

It is far too much republic and far too little democracy.

I'm more inclined toward a parlimentary system than what we have now.

The electoral college has polarized this country. The two-party system is far too restricting to fully represent exactly what we as individuals believe in. We might join the Republican or Democrat party because either party might be the party that more closely fits our beliefs but we often have to make concessions to our beliefs in doing so. I too would favor a more parliamentary system and have the make-up of Congress be proportionate to party votes.

I don't think we need to vote on every bill or initiative or proposal that comes our way though. Nothing would ever get done.

I would, however, strongly back mandatory voting laws. I feel people who live in a democracy such as ours have a civil responsibility to participate in their government, especially when so much blood has been shed protecting our right to do so.

 

[pvsi.]

Not unlike the general elections, would you be in favor of national votes on issues that are of major concern such as taxes, medicare and other entitlements, job programs, education etc.?

100% yes. on all. world would be a much better place too. the reason the establishment media is calling democratic republic of Congo or North Korea is to convince us just how terrible real democracy is - they prefer a FRAUD democracy to be able to point a finger and say, "look how terible democracies are".

 

[candycorn]

Not unlike the general elections, would you be in favor of national votes on issues that are of major concern such as taxes, medicare and other entitlements, job programs, education etc.? A straight up or down vote that can be scheduled as we can deem appropriate. Yearly every six months what ever. It seems as though little is getting done and the outside interests are taking control. The supreme court is a joke. They are appointed therefore are bias from the beginning of their appointment. A national vote would better reflect the nations desire to move in a specific direction on a number of issues. It will be paramount that several free channels be set up with the issues described without commentary. The Oil Sands is a hot topic today. I chose to get the information straight from Canadian resources. The professional Chemists, Geologists etc. How many jobs would be created which both sides lied about but are now walking back. I base my opinions on those facts not those of oil interests and political posturing. This is useful to me not MSNBC or FOX. If we can present the concrete facts then the people can make an informed decision. Well what do you think? Costs can be absorbed by cutting politicians pay and benefits as they are all for sacrifices by all of us.

I would favor a major rethink of our entire system of government.

It is far too much republic and far too little democracy.

I'm more inclined toward a parlimentary system than what we have now.

Totally correct. The system worked fine when there were me nand women of faith in our Congress (I don't mean religious faith, I mean trust in one another, trust in the Executive, trust in the American People...). We don't have that any longer because the voters have become apathetic and lazy.

So, the rules of goverance have to be changed to enforce the values that we are now lacking if the republic is to survive.

1. No "pocket vetoes" by any house of Congress: All bills passed by one house must be considered by the full body of the other house in 60 to 90 days.
2. Modify the electoral college to make sure a President wins both the popular as well as the electoral vote
3. Redistricting is to be done at random where a lottery is held to apportion districts of the HOR to zip codes at random.
4. Federal level elections are to have their radio and TV advertising free of charge at the local television level. Issue ads that are aired must make the appropriate consideration for the other side of the argument as well

Many more things can and should be done but these are the most important. The rules of the game need to be changed. Nothing else will suffice outside of a true groundswell of involvement by the American public.

 

[candycorn]

That sounds good but sounds way to easy for computer manipulation. Nothing can be trusted anymore. We need guns to protect ourselves FROM govt.

Wow...I was taking you seriously up until then.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No. We have a Federal Republic. Otherwise big cities get to decide everyone else's way of life. No thanks.

Exactly. We have a Constitution, a Republic that is run (generally) on democratic principles. We have succeeded for more than 200 years.

 

[Wiseacre]

Within each state, yes. For the country as a whole, no. Otherwise, the folks in rural areas would be consistently be scewed while those in urban cities would be having things their own way. You'd have no real voice if you didn't live in one of the major population centers.

 

[Lovebears65]

This is how much people are dumb when they elected OBAMA. Howard Stern had someone ask people who they would vote for of course they said Obama but then they said even if Sarah Palin was the VP and all McCains issues and they agreed with everything. They did not care who was on the ticket they wanted OBAMA because the media packaged him in a pretty package and tied it up in a nice big [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=woBC5b3Ti0M&feature=related]Obama Supporters are Idiots! - YouTube[/ame]